On Friday 01 February 2002 10:34, Rob Hudson wrote: > > On 20020201.1024, Larry Price said ... > > > > On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, Jacob Shaw wrote: > > > > The BSD's are good operating systems, the machine i'm typing this > > on used to run freebsd before debian took over, and I'm running > > OpenBSD on my laptop. But, there is a reason that the linux kernel > > now runs on almost as many platforms as netbsd, that IBM, NEC, and > > oracle are picking up on GNU/Linux, and not *bsd; and that reason > > is the GPL. Not directly, true, and most of the major commercial > > players hated the idea from a business standpoint at first until > > they understood that while closed source (which is what > > BSD-licensed software becomes if you make changes and keep them > > private) provide a short-term advantage in tactical terms it kept > > them in the minority culture which is and will be a long-term > > strategic disadvantage. > > Other than the disadvantage of choosing a platform in the minority, > what's the reason to choose a GPLd platform? Or, why NOT choose > *BSD?
I'm sure Larry will clarify his point, but I think you are only considering the issue from a user's point of view rather than that of a developer. When many businesses first consider using "open software" as a base for development they think they want to keep everything they do to themselves. But, after looking at the way the GPL works, they, more often than not, choose the GPL over looser licenses. With GPL the work they've done can be improved by others, and that additional work, when it's released publicly, comes back to them. That guarantee is not a fundamental part of other licenses. > If both *bsd and GNU/Linux were equally popular, from a business > perspective, I would think the *BSDs would be chosen. And here you have the much wider range of work that is being done in the GNU/Linux world making it more attractive to end users.
